More vote-buying

[On Guard for Thee]

The PBO is projecting a $600M surplus.

That's not for this year. This year it's a 1.5 billion deficit, which could be reduced to possibly 1 billion depending on inflation and low interest rates.

[Smallc]

That's not for this year. This year it's a 1.5 billion deficit, which could be reduced to possibly 1 billion depending on inflation and low interest rates.

No, this year it's $1B - taking the $1B cushion into account, that's a exact balanced budget.

Next year, it's a $600M surplus based on projections thus far.

[Hal 9000]

Homeowners make up about 20% of dwellings (in my region anyway), many of those people make up the 10% wealthiest Canadians. That 20% pays nearly all of municipal taxes and 10% pay nearly 60% of all federal taxes.

So, by giving a tax break to homeowners for improvements, it's essentially manipulating the higher income people to spend more of their money - and in turn placing more money into the hands of the gov't and lower income people.

If I replace the floor in my house, i'll spend 5000$ plus taxes. That money will be disbursed to everyone who manufactures the flooring, drives the truck to deliver it, the sales people, and the guys who will install it. There are likely others too, but I digress. That $5000 plus taxes that I spend will go farther than the couple of pennies on the dollar that I save - not to mention the municipal taxes that increase when my property value goes up. One could easily argue that the government is taking advantage of us.

The poor get poorer when that top 10 or 20% of us stop spending - simple as that. The poor get more as we dwindle our bank accounts. The gov't wants me spending money and is luring me to do just that.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, this year it's $1B - taking the $1B cushion into account, that's a exact balanced budget.

Next year, it's a $600M surplus based on projections thus far.

That's again, what Harper and co. are saying, not the PBO.

[Smallc]

That's again, what Harper and co. are saying, not the PBO.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, using the Bank of Canada’s new projections for downgraded economic growth in 2015, said the government will have a deficit of $1-billion this year and head back into the black only in 2016-17, with a surplus of $600-million.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-run-1-billion-deficit-based-on-boc-forecast-pbo/article25625594/

the $1B will be handled by the budget cushion.

[On Guard for Thee]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, using the Bank of Canada’s new projections for downgraded economic growth in 2015, said the government will have a deficit of $1-billion this year and head back into the black only in 2016-17, with a surplus of $600-million.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-run-1-billion-deficit-based-on-boc-forecast-pbo/article25625594/

the $1B will be handled by the budget cushion.

Perhaps you should read your link first. It confirms what I am telling you.

[Smallc]

Perhaps you should read your link first. It confirms what I am telling you.

That's a direct quote from the link.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's a direct quote from the link.

That's correct, 1 billion $ deficit this year.

[msj]

Well the link states $1 billion deficit this year (2015/2016 fiscal) and $600 million surplus for next year (2016/2017 fiscal).

Given that the budget is based on an oil price of something like $54 this year (2015/2016) and, I think, $67 for next year (or maybe it is further out - caveat for memory here) we will see what the actual numbers do.

But who knows, maybe the budget will balance itself?

Unlikely with such a long election campaign adding hundreds of millions in additional costs to Elections Canada....

Edited August 5, 2015 by msj

[Smallc]

That's correct, 1 billion $ deficit this year.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. You claimed that the PBO projected a deficit for next year. That didn't happen.

[Smallc]

Unlikely with such a long election campaign adding hundreds of millions in additional costs to Elections Canada....

It is projected to add up to $125M in costs - not enough to throw off the numbers by a significant amount.

[msj]

Yes, that's exactly what I said. You claimed that the PBO projected a deficit for next year. That didn't happen.

Hasn't happened yet you mean.

If the price of oil stays like it is then we are almost certainly looking at another deficit (not that there is anything wrong with that - but if politicians want to play the deficit game then they can live and die by it for all I care).

[Smallc]

Hasn't happened yet you mean.

I can't speak to future projections. Neither can OGFT. We may have a small deficit. I'm not going to make as big of a deal out of it as the Conservatives.

[msj]

It is projected to add up to $125M in costs - not enough to throw off the numbers by a significant amount.

Oh, I agree it is an immaterial amount when compared to a budget in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

But still, $125 million here and there and pretty soon we are talking some real money being wasted trying to give one party an edge over the others.

[Smallc]

But still, $125 million here and there and pretty soon we are talking some real money being wasted trying to give one party an edge over the others.

I agree with you. I'm just not going to lose sleep over it.

[msj]

I agree with you. I'm just not going to lose sleep over it.

I agree - not going to affect my vote anyway given that the only issue I care about is the Northern Gateway pipeline and since I live in a riding that is about 80% likely to go NDP anyway I may as well vote my conscience and vote for the guy with nice hair.

[WIP]

I'm really tired of renters complaining about homeowners and tax breaks. The top 10% of money earners contribute over 55% of the entire federal taxes and nearly all municipal taxes. You want snow removal - run to the homeowners, you want water, sewer, a sidewalk, hall, parks, arena, community centre - go to the homeowners, because renters aren't paying that tab, we are! A small tax break so we can once again spend money to support and employ lower income workers is no big deal - it might seem like vote buying, but really, it's a drop in the barrel that will help the lower income earners.

And yet somehow, in spite of their burdens, those rich are getting richer while everyone else stands in place or falls further behind!

if you want to be part of a livable community, you better recognize that dog-eat-dog values won't achieve it! In countries with the highest gaps between rich and poor, like Columbia, South Africa, Russia, as quick examples, rich people drive specially adapted cars with security systems, move about with armed guards, and live in fear of their children being kidnapped and held hostage.

And, it's not the superrich who are most at risk of crime in dystopian societies. It's the upper middle class, who can afford nice homes...but not nice enough to be completely shielded from robbers and burglars, and have to drive through and work in urban centers. Nobody gets to keep all their money and live worry free.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, that's exactly what I said. You claimed that the PBO projected a deficit for next year. That didn't happen.

You tried to somehow claim a balanced budget this year.

[Smallc]

You tried to somehow claim a balanced budget this year.

I claimed that the $1B deficit will be taken care of by the $1B budget cushion resulting in a budget that has no surplus, but requires no borrowing. There's no reason to believe otherwise.

[Hal 9000]

And yet somehow, in spite of their burdens, those rich are getting richer while everyone else stands in place or falls further behind!

if you want to be part of a livable community, you better recognize that dog-eat-dog values won't achieve it! In countries with the highest gaps between rich and poor, like Columbia, South Africa, Russia, as quick examples, rich people drive specially adapted cars with security systems, move about with armed guards, and live in fear of their children being kidnapped and held hostage.

And, it's not the superrich who are most at risk of crime in dystopian societies. It's the upper middle class, who can afford nice homes...but not nice enough to be completely shielded from robbers and burglars, and have to drive through and work in urban centers. Nobody gets to keep all their money and live worry free.

I really wish you people would give some numbers as to what you believe "rich" or "wealthy" is.

[On Guard for Thee]

I claimed that the $1B deficit will be taken care of by the $1B budget cushion resulting in a budget that has no surplus, but requires no borrowing. There's no reason to believe otherwise.

Either you count the rainy day fund as part of the budget or you don't. If you do, you don't have a rainy day fund anymore. Can't have it both ways.

[Smallc]

Either you count the rainy day fund as part of the budget or you don't. If you do, you don't have a rainy day fund anymore. Can't have it both ways.

You don't count it as part of your spending. At the end of the year, the 'fund' (this is what I've been trying to explain to you) ceases to be a fund as is simply rolled into the final budget numbers. If there is a surplus, it makes the final surplus bigger. If there's a deficit, it makes the deficit smaller. it could even be the difference between a $500M deficit and a $500M surplus.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Smallc

[On Guard for Thee]

You don't count it as part of your spending. At the end of the year, the 'fund' (this is what I've been trying to explain to you) ceases to be a fund as is simply rolled into the final budget numbers. If there is a surplus, it makes the final surplus bigger. If there's a deficit, it makes the deficit smaller. it could even be the difference between a $500M deficit and a $500M surplus.

Right, but you've then defeated the purpose of having it.

[Smallc]

Right, but you've then defeated the purpose of having it.

No, that's actually the exact purpose of it in the context of the federal government and the way it's used. Again, my point all along.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, that's actually the exact purpose of it in the context of the federal government and the way it's used. Again, my point all along.

It's exactly not the purpose of it though, unless you consider a budget shortfall a natural disaster.